HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Staff Report 9.12.83/
PROJECT TNFORIVIATION
PROJECT NAME:
REQUEST:
APPLTCANTS:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
PREPARATION:
LOCATION:
ACCESS:
SITE DATA:
EXISTING ZONES:
AND STAF'F COMMENTS
Rif1e to San Juan 345-KV
Transmission Line
Special Use Permit
Bocc 9/t2/83
Colorado Ute Electric Association,
Inc. ; Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA); Public
Service Company (PSC)
Colorado Ute Electric Association,
Rural Electrication Administration
(REA) ; Bureau of Land lvlanagement
(BLM); and Burns and McDonnell
Portions of Sections L4, 22, 23,28, 29 and 32 of Township 5 South,
Range 93 West; Sections 5 & 7 of
Township 7 South, Range 93 West;
Sections 7 , 8, 9, I0, 11 e 12 of
Township 7 South, Range 94 West;
Sections 1I, 12, 14, 15, 20, 2L,29, 30 & 31 of Township 7 South,
Range 95 West; Sections 7 d 18 of
Township 8 South, Range 95 West;
more generally described as acorridor following the base of thefoothills in a southwesterlydirection from the Rifle substationto a point on the Garf ield/Ir{esa
County line 6 miles south of
Parachute and 9 miles northeast of
DeBeque.
Via private and public access
easements off of County Roads 3L7,
320, 325, 329, 30I, 338, 302t 303,
300 and 306.
The proposed project is asingle-circuit 345 KV electric
transmission Iine approximately
20.6 miles in length in Garfield
County.
r.RELATIONSHIP TO THE
A/R/RD
o/s
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and public landswith the various alternatives, nearly every type of management district inthe Conprehensive PIan is included, except Districts A and F. Utilitytransmission lines are not specifically dealt with in the ComprehensivePIan, but the following goals, policies, and performance standards arerelevant to the siting of the Rifle-San Juan 345 KV transmission line:
1. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequatetransportation facilities and public utilites are available. (#1,
Page L2)
2. Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existingactive farms and ranches. (#1, Page L7')
3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion,
sedimentation and runoff. (#1I, page 29ll
4. Protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development tothe land. (#14, Page 29)
5. Protect unique natural and scenic resources (unique vegetation,major wildlife habitats.) (#16, page 30)
-5-
5. The County shall guide new development to occur on lands having
moderate, minor or no environmental constraints. In areas with
environmental problems, the county shalI require development to
perform to a standard which mitigates or minimizes the problem. (#2,
Page 30)
7. Those lands or geographic areas within the County which are
considered to be of scenic value or unique to the character of the
County sha1l be protected from negative effects caused by
development. In such areas, special site design shall be required
which minimizes and mitigates disturbance of natural vegetation;
clearing and gradi.g, blockage of views, and incompatibilities with
the general character of the area. (#8, Page 3I)
8. The grading of aII new development shall be designed so that cut
and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project
site.a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than ZtL unless
efficient stabilization methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which
demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land.
(#r B (5) , Page 78)
9. Performance Standards:
d. Development construction shall minimize the disturbance of
the existing vegetative cover.
b. No vegetation shall be removed on slopes 25* or over unless
otherwise approved by the County Commissioners.
c. Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained
where these corridors have noted witdlife habitats. (Page 81)
10. Performance Standards:
a. Proposed land uses shall be
mitigation of potential impacts
with all adjacent land uses.
required to provide adequate
to ensure maximum comPatibilit,Y
b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed
development will be aPproved.
1. Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating
than the adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the
more intensive uses until that proposed use is compatible
with the adjacent property to the satisfaction of the County
Commissioners. (Page 89)
11. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following
reasons:a. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate
neighborhood or the entire community.
b. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent
proper ties.
c. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
residents.d. Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and
design.
e. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas.
f. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the
entire community. (Page 90)
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The proposed corridor would start at the Rif1e
Substation southeast of Rifle and foIlow the existing Public Service
Company 230 KV line up Grass l,lesa and then in a southwesterly direction
along the high mesas at the foot of Battlement lr{esa. The terrain crossed
will be varied, with relatively flat mesa areas to fairly rugged hillside
terrain. Vegetation in the areas affected will vary from sagebrush in the
Iower valIey to pinion-juniper and oakbrush in the higher areas. Of the
20.6 miles, 0.5 mile of irrigated farmland and 1.0 mile of nonirrigated
cropland is proposed to be crossed.
-6-
B. project Description: The proposed project is the first section of an
approximately 275 mile long 345 KV line extending from Rifle to San Juan,
Wew mexico. In L979, the project was proposed by Colorado Ute as a
double-circuit 345 KV line, but was denied approval of a Certificate of
public Convenience and Necessity by the PubIic Utility Commission of
Colorado. The project was revised to include a new participant (Public
Service CompanyJ, I new load center (Grand Junction) ano reducing the size
of the project to a single circuit 345 KV line. Presently, there are
three participants in the project; Colorado Ute (37.58), Western Area
Power Aaministration (37.58), and PubIic Service Company (258). The
present application has received a recommendation of approval of the
Certificale of Public Convenience and Necessity by the PUC Staff and
Hearing Examiner. The basic transmission line structures will be steel
lattice towers I30 feet in height. Aesthetically pleasing single pole
structures are being considered for visually sensitive areas. The base of
the towers will cover approximately 900 square feet of 1and, with an
average span of L2OO feet beLween towers. This converts to approximately
4 or 5 towers per miIe. The right of way width wiII be a minimum of L50
feet in width, with some areas being wider due to location, span length
and conductor sag. Rights-of-way will, not be clear cuts, selective
cutting and feathering of trees wiII be used to minimize the visual
impact.
Access roads would be constructed for construction and on-9oing
maintenance purposes. It is estimated that one mile of L4 foot wide
non-paved driving surface wil-l be required for each mile of transmission
linel It is preierred by the proponents to keep the road grades Iess than
l0 percent. ft is estimited that the total workforce will be a maximum of
I13 persons at any one time during the projected 11 month construction
schedule, which does not require a fiscal impact mitigation program.
The actual construction is projected to begin in the Spring of I9B4 and
end in 1985, with an estimated cost of $17,800,000 for the Rifle to Grand
Junction segment.
I]I. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Zoning: The Garfield County Zoning Resolution treats utility
facilitiei as a special use in all zone districts, except those lands
zoned O/S (Open Space), which are federal lands. On those lands' a
utitit.y transmission line is a conditional use.
Staff Comments:
I. The special use permit application is for the preferred
alternative in the Rifle to San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line and
Associated Facilities Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS). The SDEIS analyzed eight (B) alternative
routes for the Rifle to Grand Junction segment of the line. The
preferred alternative (Alternative H) has the least impact on
erosion hazard, reclamation potential, Iand use, visual resources
and human resources. Of Lhe ten catagories of analysis,
Alternative H was ranked fifth in impact on wildife due to mule
deer and elk fawning and calving area impacts and impacts on
winter range. Colorado Ute will consult with the Division of
WildIife to schedule construction activities at times which wiII
not impact fawning and calving and winter range. With this
consideration, the impact on mule deer anO elk should be
minimized. The remaining four catagories have lower rankings;
vegetation 3rd, riparian 3rd, geologic hazard potential 4th, and
cultural resources 2nd. Overall, Alternative H has less impact
on the environment than other alternatives.
B.
Alternative C has been identified by some people as a viable
alternative route. This route woutd follow the existing PubIic
Service 230 KV line and then cross the Colorado River and I-70
corridor west of Rifle and follow a route north of the I-70
corridor to a point east of Debeque where it would cross back
over the I-70 corridor and the Colorado River. This alternative
has the least potential geologic impact, with only 9.9 miles of
potentially unstable geology. It is shown to have the greatest
impact on wildlife, due primarily to the impact to BaId Eagle
conceration areas. Alternative C is identified as having the
next worst reclamation potential and impact on human resources.
The human resources impacL is due primarily to the corridor's
Iocation in relationship to Rifler Parachute and Debeque. If
rankings for overall impacts would have been made, Alternative H
would have been ranked first and Alternative C would have ranked
fourth. (See staff report on SDEIS, pages ,"-tl 'l-7-
4.
RifIe Ski Corporation representatives have commented on the
various alternatives and expressed a preference for Alternative C
(the northern corridor). They question the visual resources
impact analysis. (See commenls, pages 18-25.) Colorado Ute is
prLsently meeting with the Ski Corporatfon representatives to try
and resolve any concerns. Additionally, Colorado Ute has stated
that they are ;il1ing to utilize a single pole tower design
through areas that are visually sensitive.
Ranchers in the western portion of the route in Garfield County
have met with Colorado Ute representatives to discuss the route.
Their concerns center around the impacts to irrigated and
nonirrigated cropland, wiIdIife, Iivestock, the creation of
anoLher powerline through undeveloped lands and additional
vehiculai access to undeveloped lands. Discussions with the
ranchers brought up another possible route; Alternative H to a
point south ancl wesl of Battlement Mesa, where the line would
move back to a corridor adjacent to the existing Public Service
230 KV line. Overall, Alternative H will cross 0.5 rniles of
irrigated cropland and 1.0 miles of nonirrigated cropland' The
impait to wifatife has been discussed previously, with the
exieption of the biological impacts. Biological impacts on
wilatife are inconclusirre, but Colorado Ute does not feel the
animals will spend much time grazLng under the powerline, rather
passing under lf,e line, which wiII have virtually no effect, Lf
Lhere is an effect. Colorado Ute has investigated the suggested
re-route noted above and stated that they have no objection to
the suggested re-route.
Concerns abouL the fact that for each mile of powerline
mile of road access will be necessary, aII access roads
will be 14 feet in width. Colorado Ute has eight types
roads identified in their construction requirementsf of
are identifieO as being temporary for the construction period and
revegetated and recontoured after completion of the
consiruction. In aII areas where new access roads are neceSSary
over private lands, it is suggested that the roads be tempordrY,
with revegetation and recontouring occurring as a part of the
overall reclamation plan. The Bureau of Land Management has
expressed a desire to have Some new access roads become
peimanent, which will be addressed in the BLM access agreements'
Conditionat Use Permit
alternative was approved on August
Board of Commissioners with the
County aPProved the ProPosedwould approve it too.
, one
createdof access
which two
5.IvIesa County has reviewed the
application The Preferred16, 1983 by the Mesa CountY
contingency that if Garfield
modified route, Mesa CountY
of the various alternatives, the preferred alternative will have
the least impact on private lands. Approximately 40 miles of the
total of 56 miles are publically owned lands. A11 other
alternatives have a higher ratio of private l-ands involved'
IV. FINDINGS:
1. The aPPlication has been
9.03.0I of the CountY Zoning
2. That proper public notice has been givenr EIs required in Section
9.03.04 of the Glrfield County Zoning Resolution of L979r ds amended;
filed in accordance with Section 5.03 and
Resolution of L979r &s amended;
3. That the Garfield county Planning commission has
of said Special Use Permit, with conditions'
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the
permit is consistent with the best interests of the
morals, convenience, order prosperity and welfare of
Garfield CountY.
recommended aPProval
proposed special use
health, safetY,the citizens of
-8-
V.RECOMMENDATION
On August I0, 1983, the Garfield County Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed route with the modification that at a
point south and west of Battlement llesa, the proposed line wiLl cross back
over to the existing Public Service 230-kv corridor and parallel it to the
Ivlesa County 1ine, with following conditions:
1. AlI proposals of the applicant sha1l be considered conditions of
approval, unless expressly stated below:
2. That prior to issuance of the subject special use permit, the
applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County Department
of Development/P1anning Division copies of:
a. A11 permits from other governmental entities;
b. The PubIic Utilities Commission approved Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity;
c. The final easement description location of towers,
storager/staging areas, and easement agreements withprivate and public land owners. Department of
Development staff wiIl contact affected landowners and
inspect easement with the applicant prior to
construction. Any changes suggested by landowners and
staff will be incorporated into the final design.
3. That each storage,/staging area be permitted separately, for defined
periods of time.
4. That the applicant will post a bond for road maintenance as deemed
appropriate by the Board and the County Road Supervisor.
5. That the applicant wiII post a bond the equivalent to the estimated
cost of site rehabilitation of all private lan<is affected in
Garfield County.
6. That upon an allegation by an affected land owner or governmental
entity, the Board sha11 investigate compliance with the conditions
of approvalr ES provided for in section 9.01.06 of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolutions, of L978r 3s amended;
7. That the permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with the
permitrs conditions of approval until such time that all
construction and site rehabilitation has been accepted by the
CountY.
8. That all access roads on private lands be described as NAR-IC
(temporary road to be revegetated upon completion of construction)
or NAR-ID (temporary road which wiII be recontoured and revegetated
upon completion of construction), unless a different type of access
road is agreed upon by the landowner involved.
9. That prior to issuance of said Special Use Permit a definite
construction time schedule sha1I be submitted to the County.
10. That prior to issuance of said Special Use Permit, the applicant
shall submit verification of the fact that all employees have or
will have housing available.
Ll. That said Special Use Permit will be taken out within one (1) year
of the date of approval of the resolution and be valid only for theperiod of time identified in the construction schedule.
L2. That construction will commence within 120 days of the j-ssuance of
said Special Use Permit.
-9-